[The Final Dakar]

The article does note this counts as three cases, however.

[The Final Dakar]

WTF Puerto Rico?

Puerto Rico Supreme Court Upholds Gay Adoption Ban - Decision comes on 5-4 vote

Puerto Rico's Supreme Court has narrowly voted to uphold a law banning gay couples from adopting children. Today's 5-4 vote comes in the case of an unidentified woman who sought to adopt a child that her partner had through in-vitro fertilization. A majority of judges upheld the constitutionality of a law specifying that a family includes a mother and father because that is best for a child's dignity and well-being.

Chief Justice Federico Hernandez Denton dissented, saying that the plaintiff's attorneys proved the adoption would benefit the child. The decision comes as Puerto Rican legislators prepare to debate several bills that would extend more rights to gays and lesbians.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

WTF Puerto Rico?

Doesn't surprise me too much. Latin America is hypocritical about homosexuality. They love to talk about morality and the bible and all that but in reality have the morals of street dogs. Here in the DR men will have sex with other men all the while insisting they are 100% straight and that gays are awful people. Basically, being gay/straight is not defined by sexual activity, it's how you identify yourself. Took me a while to wrap my brain around after I moved here.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Basically, being gay/straight is not defined by sexual activity, it's how you identify yourself. Took me a while to wrap my brain around after I moved here.

Oh that's not exclusive too. There's that subset of people who think getting your dick sucked by a dude isn't gay, it's if you suck a dude's dick it's gay. (I imagine this may also extend to anal sex).

But as you point out it's about identification. Which essentially trying to claim a rose isn't a rose because no one likes roses, but not for any good reason.

[The Final Dakar]

This is tangentially relevant to a discussion ebuddy and I are having in another thread.

Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause | The American Conservative

The party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has focused on cosmetic solutions to, say, our underperformance among ethnic and young voters. This is a mistake: we cannot cross this river by feeling for stones. Instead, we need to take a hard look at what today’s conservatism stands for.

While serving as governor of Utah, I pushed for civil unions and expanded reciprocal benefits for gay citizens. I did so not because of political pressure—indeed, at the time 70 percent of Utahns were opposed—but because as governor my role was to work for everybody, even those who didn’t have access to a powerful lobby. Civil unions, I believed, were a practical step that would bring all citizens more fully into the fabric of a state they already were—and always had been—a part of.

All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.

Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.

Of course, I'd posit this guy is likely considered a RINO or not a true conservative by a good chunk of Repiublicans.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh that's not exclusive too. There's that subset of people who think getting your dick sucked by a dude isn't gay, it's if you suck a dude's dick it's gay. (I imagine this may also extend to anal sex).

What was the line from Pecker?

"Mom, I'm not gay, I'm trade, Queers blow me!"

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh that's not exclusive too. There's that subset of people who think getting your dick sucked by a dude isn't gay, it's if you suck a dude's dick it's gay. (I imagine this may also extend to anal sex).

Aren't they usually called convicts?

[Shaddim]

I was thinking Aryan Brotherhood.

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/prominent-republicans-sign-brief-in-support-of-gay-marriage.html

Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.

The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

[subego]

I like it when Republicans tell Republicans they're full of shit.

[The Final Dakar]

With, I believe, two exceptions, notice it's [out of office] Republicans telling [office holding] Republicans they're full of shit.

[subego]

Good point.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Good point.

Political realities have a sad ability to override actual reality.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

I like it when Republicans tell Republicans they're full of shit.

I like it when reason wins out over hysteria! The tide has truly turned and there's no going back.

I've learned to temper my optimism but I'm actually starting to believe I may be back in the US in 2014.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Political realities have a sad ability to override actual reality.

Not having to be an asshole must be some weight off the shoulders.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not having to be an asshole running for office must be some weight off the shoulders.

Yes, yes it is.

[subego]

The poor dears.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

The poor dears.

Being a nice guy doesn't put food on the political table.

[subego]

The extent of that seems somewhat dependent upon the people they choose to represent.

[The Final Dakar]

Not to crush your spirit, atheist, but uh...

Lindsey Graham Warns Immigration Reform Including Same-Sex Couples Will Fail

"Why don't we just put legalized abortion in there and round it all out," Graham said to reporters.

Ouch.

That said, could the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA have any bearing on this?

[subego]

If DOMA goes, I find it hard to see where there isn't a solid "due process" argument.

In its own way, I think the killing of DADT might have more affect. When the Federal government legally discriminates against you every goddamn day, I think it's hard to pick up due process momentum.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not to crush your spirit, atheist, but uh...

Lindsey Graham Warns Immigration Reform Including Same-Sex Couples Will Fail



Ouch.

That said, could the SCOTUS ruling on DOMA have any bearing on this?

Yes, most definitely. Once DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, there's no legal basis for blocking same-sex couples such as my partner and I from returning to the US. I should be able to sponsor him for a K-1 non-immigrant fiancé visa or if we get married abroad (right now the only practical place we can get married is Mexico City) he can get a K-3 non-immigrant spouse visa. As it stands now we are planning a wedding in Mexico next year on the 10th anniversary of the day we met. The logistics and cost are a bit of a nightmare but at this point we're ready to do whatever it takes to make this happen.

And even if DOMA somehow survives, there is a good chance the immigration reform bill will pass this year with the provisions for same-sex couples.

As I said, I'm still confident something good will happen. I've waited 8 years, I can wait 1 or 2 more.

[The Final Dakar]

I just realized, and maybe the quote is lacking context, but we already have legalized abortion. What the hell was Graham talking about?

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I just realized, and maybe the quote is lacking context, but we already have legalized abortion. What the hell was Graham talking about?

Haha! I know right! The man really is a moron.

[subego]

He could mean a few things, but I'm guessing none of them involve him believing abortion is illegal at the moment.

IIUC, abortion is actually legally grayer than one might imagine. There's never been the will to make a federal law either way. Each state has their own setup which can't cross an invisible 14th Amendment line. Various states try to push the line around, and the result is inevitably a ****ton of lawsuits.

So, he could be saying "let's federally legalize abortion while we're at it". He could also be saying "lets federally outlaw abortion while we're at it". The overall point though seems clear, "lets not add something hyper-contentious to this".

[The Final Dakar]

It still strikes me as a poor choice of words. Abortion is de facto legal thanks to Roe v Wade.

(I probably didn't use the term de factor properly there)

[subego]

I agree it's a poor choice, but as I said, he could very well have meant "why not throw in [the problem] of legalized abortion while we're at it".

[The Final Dakar]

Drifting back, it's kind of unfortunate timing that that argument has to take place a couple months before the DOMA decision could make it moot.

[subego]

Is that the case though?

If DOMA gets shot down, shit still stays complicated.

As much as the specific issue of immigration rights for homosexuals is important to me, I can't shake the feeling there's a cart before the horse going on here. Homosexuals getting married is still illegal in half the states. Federal immigration rights for married homosexuals would force a constitutional crisis.

As much as the idea appeals to me, there's no way you could get enough senators on board to do this.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I can't shake the feeling there's a cart before the horse going on here.

There definitely is. I can only imagin the Obama proposed it for political points because, I mean, come on.

Still, worth it for the reaction.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by subego 

Homosexuals getting married is still illegal in half the states. Federal immigration rights for married homosexuals would force a constitutional crisis.

Can you elaborate? I don't quite follow your argument. If DOMA is gone, and I get legally married in a different country my partner/husband would come to the US under a nonimmigrant spouse visa. The states have no involvement whatsoever. Or as I stated earlier, he could enter as a fiancé. We would then go to one of the states where same-sex marriage is legal and get married. I'm missing the whole constitutional crisis thing.

Without DOMA, federal law is neutral with regard to same-sex marriage. If a federal law mentions marriage, and two people (of whatever sex) have a legal marriage certificate, then the feds will recognize the marriage (for the purpose of the law in question). That was the whole reason DOMA came about in the first place.

[subego]

That's the crisis right there.

A gay American citizen who gets married in the DR, would be able to petition for their spouse to become a citizen.

A gay American citizen who lives in, say, Utah, simply can't get married there.

I'd say that's a significant due process issue. Even Scalia would agree on that one. The only solutions for the SCOTUS would be to find immigration law unconstitutional (on what grounds? 14th trumps 9th, and I'd say there's no arguing whether this counts as "substantive" due process) or to overturn 25 states worth of marriage bans.

[The Final Dakar]

Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA - The Washington Post

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

You're rationalizing, Bill. You deserve whatever shit sandwich history is going to force you to eat on this one.

[The Final Dakar]

Office holding Republican comes out in favor of Gay marriage!
CNN Exclusive: One conservative's dramatic reversal on gay marriage - CNN.com

Now, the prominent Ohio conservative will be known for something else: reversing his hardline position against gay marriage.
He invited CNN to his Senate office to reveal the news.

Portman: 'Love, support' for gay son Sen. Portman told Romney his son was gay Portman: Gay marriage reversal my choice
"I'm announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples' opportunity to marry," Portman told CNN.
It has to do with another revelation, one deeply personal. His 21-year-old son, Will, is gay.

"I've come to the conclusion that for me, personally, I think this is something that we should allow people to do, to get married, and to have the joy and stability of marriage that I've had for over 26 years. That I want all of my children to have, including our son, who is gay," said Portman.

Though he is a staunch conservative, Portman was never outspoken against gay marriage. But he consistently voted against it.
Top Republicans sign brief supporting same-sex marriage
While in Congress, he supported a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and voted for a bill prohibiting gay couples in Washington from adopting.

It's amazing how many conservatives change their position on the issue when it affects their loved ones. Curious to see how this is accepted by his peers.

[subego]

I think expecting politicians to imagine caring about the people their policy affects is just too goddamn much to ask.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think expecting politicians to imagine caring about the people their policy affects is just too goddamn much to ask.

I feel like for Republicans on certain subjects they completely lack any ability to empathize.

[subego]

That's one of the overall issues with the philosophy. While I think there's value in the "everyone for themselves" approach, it obviously needs to be tempered with some compassion.

The problem is the tent is no less open to those who lack said compassion, especially since many have parlayed the lack of that trait into vast financial success.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I feel like for Republicans on certain subjects they completely lack any ability to empathize.

Eh, its the ruling class in general and worth noting there's little to no distinction between the parties. The current administration isn't winning any points in this category either.

I mean, just today:
Wife of American jailed in Iran pleads for help from US, as lawyers blast ‘AWOL’ administration | Fox News

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Eh, its the ruling class in general

Uh, no. Until recently most of the country agreed with his old stance.

The other thing worth pointing out is he jumps straight to gay marriage. Civil unions just don't play.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Uh, no. Until recently most of the country agreed with his old stance.

The other thing worth pointing out is he jumps straight to gay marriage. Civil unions just don't play.

Ok, but I'm not sure you can limit this point to republicans on this or any other issue. Obama's flip-flop on the issue (which scored political points) was not driven by empathy. I'm not taking issue with your statement, I'm asking you to replace "Republicans" with "Politicians" i.e. the ruling class.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Ok, but I'm not sure you can limit this point to republicans on this or any other issue.

If you'd like to illustrate that feel free to start a thread and I'll join in. I'd like to not derail this thread further on that point, though.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Obama's flip-flop on the issue (which scored political points) was not driven by empathy.

Quite honestly, I think Obama was lying in '08 (and I feel confident that most Rs would have thought that too). But I suppose that doesn't change your overall point; The timing on his change of heart is/was highly suspect.

[subego]

Yeah. I always felt his initial public stance (and later "reversal") was opportunism of the crassest sort.

I'm not going to support the kind of calculation where you throw your empathy out the window for political gain, but that is different animal than not having the empathy in the first place.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If you'd like to illustrate that feel free to start a thread and I'll join in. I'd like to not derail this thread further on that point, though.

Yeah I had a few examples cited but I felt it would derail too much. Table this one, shall we? There will be plenty of opportunity to hash it out in other threads or later in this one.

Quite honestly, I think Obama was lying in '08 (and I feel confident that most Rs would have thought that too). But I suppose that doesn't change your overall point; The timing on his change of heart is/was highly suspect.

Yeah, and a few of my gay friends felt the same way but voted for him anyways.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yeah I had a few examples cited but I felt it would derail too much. Table this one, shall we? There will be plenty of opportunity to hash it out in other threads or later in this one.


Yeah, and a few of my gay friends felt the same way but voted for him anyways.

Obama's always been for gay marriage. Anyone who knows his history is aware of that. He had to say what he had to say in order to get elected in '08. That's simply the sad reality of the situation.

[Waragainstsleep]

Rob Portman Reverses Gay Marriage Stance After Son Comes Out

[Shaddim]

That was posted 2 days ago.

[Waragainstsleep]

This thread is too long. Couldn't be arsed to go back through it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This thread is too long. Couldn't be arsed to go back through it.

It's on this page, smartass.

[The Final Dakar]

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/statu...06494338580481

Ran into NOM president Brian Brown after Santorum happy hour. "Rob Portman WILL have a primary challenger," he says.

IdealogicalpurityIdealogicalpurityIdealogicalpurit y

[The Final Dakar]

Hilary's in.